Great Irish Political Leaders

Che16 wrote: »

Sorry but it's too complicated to quote your post so I'm just going to reply to you here.

You didn't read my first post,I agree Collins was a military genius,his tactics were highly influential and ingenuis,I'm not disputing that one bit.He was,up until the Treaty and the shelling of the fourts a great leader.But to sign a treaty whoch essentially said everything we fought was fpr nothing and to preach it as a victory by using the people's disdain for war is disgraceful.Add to that the fact he ordered the shelling against the Republican troops in the four courts and you have a very shameful man who previously had been a great man.The treaty far from gave us the Republic we desired,ot partitioned our country and created conflict that still continues and will still continue.

He bombed the four courts after the anti-treaty side captured it themselves. They provoked it. Would they have left the Four Courts willingly? I doubt it. As I said before, had things been dealt with better they could have avoided a civil war. But I believe it was the stubbornness of both sides and nearsightedness that caused it.

Also like I also said before. When Collins accepted the treaty, we do not know what his long term plans were. At the time he accepted it, he was being pressured by the British to accept their terms. But he accepted it, maybe as a stepping stone. He also believed that Northern Ireland would be able to vote to either stay with the Free State or with Britain, with the idea being that it would have resulted in Northern Ireland becoming a part of the free state anyway. But it never came to be. But with Collins death we will never know what would have happened.

Was he a Republican?No.Why?Well a Republican is someone who owes their allegiance to the Irish Republic,proclaimed in 1916,ratified by the people in 1918 and defended by force of arms in 1919-1921 and driven underground by it's former adherents in 1922.Michael Collins abandoned this proclamation,he surrendered to the occupation forces the Republic by signing the treaty,partitioned the nation and went to war with the Republic's soldiers,he was not a Republican.

His allegiance was always to the Irish Republic. He made some tough decisions that weighed heavily on him. But his contributions during the war speak for themselves. Would anyone else had done any better then him in his position? I doubt it. The Irish Republic wasn't up to continuing a fight with Britain he accepted the treaty because he had no choice. I would consider that better, as it did prove to be a stepping stone for Irish independence. The civil war was the fault of both sides, not just Collins.

Che16 wrote: »

Ah yes,blame the Republicans for occying the Four Courts,don't believe everything they tell you in school.And what would you expect them to do when they've been sold out?

You were the one who brought up the Four Courts. It's true they did occupy the Four Courts. Nothing to do with school, it's fact. You talk about being sold out, yet when they voted on it in the Daíl, the pro treaty side won and the anti-treaty side walked out. So much for diplomacy. I would have expected a more peaceful way of dealing with the issue myself. I'm not happy that it led to violence and I do think it was wrong to shell the Four Court, but it happened. But it was both sides fault for the civil war.

They had to witness comrades die and lose years of their lives for a war that they ended up losing,there is no shame in surrendering and gathering your resources but there is shame in surrendering and claiming it as a victory.

When you surrender you accept the terms imposed upon you by the people you surrender to. You don't gather resources when you surrender. In fact it's the other way around. The victors are the ones who gather resources. We fought the British to the negotiation tables, that was a victory in itself. We also managed to get an Irish Free State, and the British out of Ireland, at least for the South anyway. They can be considered victories because we could have ended up with nothing. They could have crushed us and we would still be apart of Britain right now.

The 32 County Worker's Republic had ben usurped by the Free State and used to claim a victory,as soldiers of the Republic they had a duty to defend it,unfortunately they lost and almost 100 years later we still haven't achieved the Republic.

B*ll****. We are an independent nation right now. A sovereign nation, with our own constitution, a government and recognized as a nation. We eventually did achieve what we set out for, that is a victory because we gained our independence. If you are referring to Northern Ireland still being apart of Britain, then i'm afraid that's just the way things are. But to say that they lost would be a disservice to the guys who fought in the war. Guys who were against the treaty, eventually did accept the Free State and were a big part of it too.

Your secnd post is one of great ignorance and uneducation likely fostered by the 26 County media and school system.He was not a Republican,I've already explained what a Republican is,Tom Barry,Liam Lynch,Liam Mellows,Dan Breen etc. were Republicans,they stuck with their pri ciples,evem when they weren't popular.

Collins was as republican as the guys you mentioned. Don't mar his name just because you have a grudge. You already admitted he was a great leader up until the civil war, he fought for an Irish Republic too and did a lot during the war too.

It is the duty of al soldiers to defend the Revolution which they did,and did so admirably.He had a choice just like all these men did,he chose not to defend the Republic.

He played a pivotal role in the war, I would consider that defending the republic, not to mention he fought in the 1916 rising when the Republic was first formed. The so called republic that you are referring to, could not be gotten at the time. Even if we did get a 32 country Ireland, we would still be a Free State, still under British rule since we didn't' gain a Republic until years later. That wouldn't be a republic, but I bet the republicans you quoted above would have accepted it. So if that was the case, would they have been republicans for accepting a 32 county Free State instead of a Republic? I would consider them republican regardless just like I consider Collins one.

Stepping stone for Irish independence?Considering Ireland is not an independent nation then that didn't work out so well,our country is partitioned,conflict still ragesand we have a corrupt,sociopThic "government" that is controlled by bankers.

:rolleyes: Oh right so you blame Collins for something that happened 100 years later. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

That is NOT the Irish Republic the seven signatories died for.
The Civil war was the fault of one side and one side only,the pro-treatyites.The Republican soldiers were defending the Republic,the free staters were destroying it,they were right to oppose them by force of arms.[

See what I said above. But just to add to that. The civil war was the fault of both sides. I already explained that to you. If you can't accept that the i'm afraid it's you who's showing ignorance. You're clearly biased and don't want to admit that both sides were at fault.

Che16 wrote: »

Riddle101.
I never claimed Republicans didn't occupy the Four Courts.I said they shouldn't be criticised for it.Of course the Treaty was passed,it furthered the cause of those who passed it,unprincipled men,unprincipled treaty,they told the Irish people it was a treaty for peace,maybe in the short-term but you can't seriously say Ireland has been at peace since then.It was not both sides fault,it was the pro-treaty side,when you destroy the ideal you have fought for for years you will meet opposition,it was nt the IRA's fault for resisting the Free State,it was their duty.

Of course they should be criticized for occupying the Four Courts. You don't take armed men to occupy a building that belongs to the Free State, for nothing. They occupied it knowing they were provoking the pro-treaty side because the couldn't get their way. They actually wanted to provoke the British forces to attack them. They also kidnapped a Free State Soldier too. They undermined the Free State, and the vote that saw the pro-treaty side win. Also, those so called "unprincipled" men also for fought in the war, don't disrespect them just because you have a grudge with how things happened. Brave men fought with both sides of the treaty, and neither side should be marred with things like unprincipled. They had principles too, they just had a different belief in how things should be. That's not unprincipled that's opinion.

As I said before, a fully independent Republic was never going to happen, not at that time. Britain would never allow it because it might have triggered a chain reaction and other colonies of Britain might have opted for independence too. To allow Ireland full independence at the time, would have made Britain look weak and bad. We got the Free State instead. But the main problem of the treaty was the Partition of the Country. Had we gotten a 32 county Free State at the time, maybe the anti-treaty side would have accepted it. Thus nullifying the whole argument about Republicans serving the Republic, and fighting against the Free State. Which is bogus because it is not the duty of Republicans to fight against the Free State, you're just making things up.

Regarding surrender,we surrendered in 1916 but just a few years later we had enough momentum and resources to begin a revolution.
You are correct,he most definately did defend the Republic but when he signed the treaty he destroyed it.The men I reffered to were undisputable Republicans,they defended the Republic proclaimed in 1916 and its principles,Collins went against it,he was a Republican but ceased to be one when he did that.
No,I do not blame Collins as he could not see this coming,however,he destroyed the Republic and caused it.

To say Collins turned against the Republic and destroyed it would be overreacting. The Free State was the Republic to a lesser degree. Éamon de Valera, and many of the other Republicans you mentioned like Tom Barry eventually accepted the Free State as well, so what does that say about those Republicans? Did they become unprincipled when they accepted the Free State? The Free State evolved into the Republic anyway. But Collins fought for Irish freedom as well. He is either a Republican or he is not a Republican. I'm afraid he was indeed Republican.

Che16 wrote: »

We are not an independent nation Riddle101,our country is partitioned,the north is under military occupation and has the backing of a people that shoupdn't be here supporting it.The south is run by a government proclaiming itself as the sucessors of 1916 which is a logical contradiction.It is run by a right-wing anti-working class "government" and the bankers amd landowners run everything.That is not independence,that is not what the leaders of '16 died for.The constition,military,police force,parliament in the 26 counties is the property of the sucessors of the Free State,not the property of the Irish Republic,if they even admitted that they are not the Irish Republic,I would commend its honesty,not that I would agree with them of course.Its the hypocrisy and opportunism that gets at me.Those who fought against the Free State did of course enter Leinster House,that is factual,but by doing this they forfeited their right to be declared Republicans,a lot of anti-treaty forces did staytrue to the Republic however.

You can believe what you want to believe and not recognize an Irish Republic. But you'd be wrong. You're in a minority too which doesn't work for you either. The majority would disagree with you, including myself. So it is you who is wrong about the Republic of Ireland not being a Republic, it is a sovereign nation. It's not up to you to dictate what has already been done. It's just arrogance on your part, and an unwillingness to accept the truth.

You also seem to misinterpret the will of the 1916 risers too. The leaders of the 1916 rising all had different opinions and views as well. It wasn't just one single view by them all. In hindsight the Irish Republic in 1916 was not total nor was it defined, hence why it was called the Provisional Government of the Irish Republic. It was an idea that came to be accepted, but it was and still is open to interpretation. It certainly doesn't mean that they were flawless of infallible either.

It's you who is showing ignorance my friend,I'm very well versed in the history of the Republic and its institutions.Obviously I am biased,so are you,both our posts are hardly objective,however,yours are more biased,I base a lot of mine on my own convictions,yes,but I also use history and logic,you use the history put forward by Leinster House.

This is becoming quite childish now. Just arrogant posturing that has no real purpose in this debate, only so you can act like you're so superior to me and others, and make petty insults too. I study history too, you would want to know something about history to post on a history forum. So you don't need to talk about your knowledge of history, i'm sure you're read up on it, but so am I.

Also I'm am not so much biased, as I am someone who looks at something from a realistic point of view, and I try to be as fair as I can be. Something you can't seem to do. I can accept the wrong doings from both sides, you can't. I can accept that the treaty was quite crap, but I can also accept that it happened, and can see things from Collins perspective. I'm a not saying the anti-treaty side have it wrong either. They did fight for what they believed and they deserve respect for that. But I disagree with them, as a pro-treaty guy. Is that wrong? Does it make me biased? No it doesn't. I would have loved for a 32 country Free State and Republic, and if only Britain had allowed the 6 counties of Northern Ireland to vote at the time, maybe we would have 32 counties now. It's you who is showing bias and ignorance, because you have a hard line republican point of view, and refuse to accept the truth. A view that is very common with the Real IRA and it's supporters I wouldn't mind.